Evolution exists. Now make clear I am not debating if God exists or not, but I am debating evolution itself. If evolution truly does not exist, then explain why there have been skulls found of creatures very simalar to us. These skulls become closer and closer to a human skull. On the topic of human qualities, explain why we have a very simlar genetic code to apes. We have a 96% DNA match with chimps, a 90% DNA match with cats, a 80% match with cows, and a 75% match with mice. Notice the pattern? Our match slowly goes down. If we were all made by God then wouldn't our DNA match 0% with all animals?

Because there is no given rubric for debate, I will assume that primary BOP is on Pro, given the wording of the topic. Therefore, I only need to disprove Pro's evidence to effectively participate.

Before anything else, some definitions.

Micro evolution: Minor evolutionary change as observed over a period of time.

Macro evolution: Major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another at the level of species.

My opponent uses DNA as his opening argument. This is probably one of the most flawed among all arguments for evolution. For example, my opponent states that we share 96% of our DNA with chimps. (No sources for any of these stats.) But this really has nothing to do with whether or not we evolved from apes. The reason we share so much of our DNA, is that both species need to carry out the basic functions of life. Any animal needs to breath, digest food, reproduce, and heal its injuries. Thus, most animals share a great deal of DNA in order to carry out these tasks, but that should't mean that they are almost the same animal. In fact, humans share as much as 50% of our DNA with bananas. [1] Surely my opponent doesn't suggest that we evolved from plants.

Evolution itself as a theory is extremely flawed.

Contention #1: Evolution provides no beginning

Most evolutionists seem to believe that all the necessary building blocks for evolution were formed by an instantaneous combustion of energy and particles. According to the laws of conservation of mass and energy [2], this is completely impossible. Energy and particles cannot simply poof into existence in a "big bang". So, where did these particles and energy come from? No evolutionist that I know has been able to answer that. I invite my opponent to come up with a suitable answer for evolution's flawed beginning.

Contention #2: Evolution violates the law of entropy

According to macro evolution, a series of mutations over millions of years took place, and the individual with a good mutation survived better that the others, thus passing its mutation on to its children, resulting in a better species. Mutation is often natural, but it is chance in the sense that you don't know what will change about a species [3]. According to the law of entropy, a chance-type event will cause greater levels of organization to descend into chaos [4]. It is impossible for something less organized, such as a single celled organism or insect, to turn into something more organized like a primate or human by chance.

Contention #3: Evolution relies on too many constants

Professionals who "calculate" evolution rely on current rates of nature to have been constant since the beginning of time. Carbon dating requires that carbon's radioactive decay took place at a constant rate throughout earth's life, space plotters rely on gravity, centrifugal and centripetal forces, light, time, and decay remaining constant for "millions" of years. We have NO reason to believe that these key rates have been constant throughout earth's history.

Now I turn it over to my opponent, not only to answer to my contentions, but to provide indisputable proof that evolution is how our earth and the species on it came to be.

First source from DNA. http://genome.cshlp.org...
We all came from bacteria. This bacteria was thought to have come from a comet that hit earth. This bacteria stayed on earth for many years taking billions of years to evolve into another form. Evolution happens when DNA copies strangely. It makes a mistake. These mistakes sometimes can be good other times be bad. Proof of this is in the tree problem of 1800. Butterflies were white in Britan they used this trait to blend in to the trees to hide from birds that would eat them. Then industrialization came along. The smoke from factories turned all the trees black. Now the white butterflies were being eaten because they couldn't blend in. However a mutation came along in the butterflies which turned one of them black at birth. Now this black butterfly could blend in with the trees. The birds could not see this bug easily and the bug mated and had more black butterflies. This contunied for a while. The proof of this is in the color changing. The butterflies that mutated to the environment survives. That is how evolution works. These mutations help animals adapt and prosper. Survival of the fittest. Now explain to me this. If there was really no evolution then how did these butterflies become black? As for your micro evolution argument, single felled organisms don't just POP into humans. It took a very long time to become that. As I said above, small mutations like no hair all over or better lungs take thousands if not millions of year to happen. Some people have 6 fingers on 1 hand. If that person has children, if that gean is dominant then that child will have 6 fingers on each hand. Little things happen to each person sometimes causing new species to happen. However these are gradual. These species can be smarter or more imaginative causing new species to occur.

I have stated that mutation cannot cause an improving form of life, and my opponent has countered this by saying, "Mutation causes evolution." That is not defending that mutation is a viable form of life-creation.

My opponent says, "We all came from bacteria", as though it is fact. Even some evolutionists themselves do not believe this. [1] My opponent goes on to say that this supposed bacteria came from a comet. Where did the comet come from? Where did the bacteria come from? What made them? What made the energy necessary to drive the Comet? Not only does this piece of evidence not provide a true beginning to life and to the universe, but it also raises even more questions.

My opponents reference to butterflies near factories is a wonderful example of micro evolution, or adaptation, which is not what this debate is about. This debate is about proving/disproving evolution as a beginning to live and the universe.

My opponent clearly did not read my contention regarding entropy, because the law of entropy CLEARLY states that when changed or subject to chance (such as mutation), nature will move from higher levels of organization into more chaos. This makes evolution from a slightly organized being into a highly sophisticated being IMPOSSIBLE.

My opponent attempts to illustrate what mutation is, when that is not necessary nor effective to this debate.

"Survival of the fittest", or natural selection, is absolutely true, and has been observed. However, this selection cannot and has not created new beings, only improved those of the same species. Examples of this is camouflage in animals. [2]

Opponent has failed to answer to any of my contentions, and has failed to provide sufficient evidence for macro evolution.

My opponent's lack of commitment to this debate reflects his point of view as a viable life creator. My opponent failed to answer to my contentions and completely failed to prove evolution's existence as a form of life creation.

Aye, but you're not debating, are you. It's rude to make comments on the substance of a contender's argument before the debate is finished. This scientific issue is still in the debate stage, meaning that nothing is proven either way. Even if my evidence was wrong, pro has the BOP, not con.